Article Tools

Upon noticing that there is a surge in violence in lovely Santa Barbara, and discussion about whether or not to carry a gun was sensible, I started thinking about my childhood in upstate New York. My father was not just a gun collector, but a gun fanatic. My father worshipped guns. I swear he was a cowboy in a past life. My first hand-me-down was my brother’s 16-gauge Remington side-by-side. I was five. The gun was taller than me. But as my father’s child, I had no choice.

Our family events rotated around opening days. For opening day of pheasant season, I was up at 2 a.m. to start eggs, bacon, and coffee for the ascending hordes of men—usually about 75 to 150 men at our home for breakfast at 3 a.m. For deer season, it was a neighborhood event to see my brothers come home with a stag (nothing less than 12 points) and clean it in the front yard. The family motto was “If you kill it, you clean it!” All my friends would gather to see my older brother explain the ins and outs of a deer.

My father was a widower, so my brothers became my babysitters when Dad stepped out. At that time, drinking age in New York was 18, which of course meant 16. (My brothers practically built the Anchor Bar.) So what did my brothers do?

“Okay, here’s the gun.” (A Luger, taken off some dead German.)

“It’s loaded.” (They all were—including the guns.)

“Remember, there is a bullet in the chamber. It’s ready to go!” (So were their dates.)

“Now if there’s someone at the window, shoot first, but remember to pull him in the window before you call the police.” (I was eight.)

I would spend the next four hours hovering by the TV with my Barbie doll in one hand and a loaded Luger in the other. You can’t imagine how much a house can creak when you’re eight.

When we moved to California, all the guns finally were counted. There were 421 shotguns, from all eras. We had a flintlock, bayonets, crossbows, Winchesters, Remington’s, automatics, semiautomatics—well, you get the idea. When my paternal grandmother died, I inherited her “Lady Derringer.” Of course, my mother’s side of the family was not to be outdone; I inherited a cemetery plot—oh, the symmetry!

All our family stories revolved around guns. My father was councilman of our town; we would enviably get “death threats” on the phone at which we would all laugh. When my brother was evacuating his house because of fires in Sacramento, I jokingly asked what went on the truck first. He said diapers. “Diapers!” I exclaimed. “Ya,” he said, “I needed something to cushion the guns.” Of course.

I have a photo of my niece, age five, in camo, with a dead deer to her right and a Beanie Baby on her left shoulder. Veronica had to stop talking about family outings because other kids were horrified that she had killed Bambie. My brothers never, ever remembered my birthday, but they could recall how the nick in my gun got there. (Charlie had a fever of 104 so he dragged the gun home).

Of course there were some accidents. My brother came home one night (morning) and asked me if he was bleeding. It turned out that he had been shot in the head by some kid who mistaken him for a woodchuck. We all thought it was hysterical. No, we’re not sadists: What was funny was that Charlie had just returned from Viet Nam (as a Green Beret with five Bronze Star Medals) and he didn’t get a scratch on him. My brother asked me to put a Band-Aid on the wound and wake him up in a couple of hours because he was mad he didn’t get a woodchuck.

Dad was a defense contractor. He had ton of empty missile shells littering his garden, like gnomes. When Dad passed, my husband and I were emptying his house. My husband told me in no uncertain terms that he was not going to move all those shells. What do you do with empty missile shells? When Saddam’s cache of weapons was revealed, I was so mad—Dad had more shells in is garden than Saddam did! (My husband suggested I send them to “W” to pad Saddam’s WMD’s.) You had to “pat down” all of Dad’s sport jackets, because that was his favorite place to hide his (loaded) revolvers. When empting Dad’s van, we found two guns, a set of brass knuckles, numchucks, and a police baton—Dad always carried a lot of cash and he liked to be prepared.

So do I recommend you carry a gun? Yes. If you carry lots of cash, and if you remember to you pull the burglar in the window first!

Comments

Besides being a santuary city for illegal aliens and gang bangers. Santa Barbara does not want you to carry a gun.The women in Oregon can carry guns... they just have to have a large purse or waistbag and bad guys leave them alone. In Santa Barbara the bad guys know people do not carry guns..so they rape and assault them. And once a year the women in S.B. and 'take back the night'. Women in Oregon do not 'take back the night'. They never gave away the night or the ability to defend themselves...Sooner or later you will realize the cops can't save you...They will bring some chalk for you though...

If a bad guy thought a woman had a gun...she would not be attacked in the first place... Do you think the gang bangers who were released from prison with little time...and beat the guy to death on my street were real?Try your liberal views on them...But crying and saying 'don't kill me' may not work...

Upticks in violence are a natural progression due mostly to---say it with me now---overpopulation. Duh. More people, more violence. The most basic of observations still allows for the Occam's Razor result of 1 plus 1.

Now, as to the point of this "article"--- I still can't find one after two read-throughs. Part sensationalist headline, part memoir, all first draft Creative Writing 101.

And such a timely and culturally ingrained topic of deep and abiding local interest: guns. When did we become Texas or South Central LA? Oy veh.

Thanks for sharing, Meg, but do we really need to muck through the typewriter compost of San Jose for quality content in Santa Barbara?

I don't always mean to be so negative in my comments all the time (well, mostly), but if anyone can show me any redeeming value in this pointless memoir, please help me out here. This speaks to "carry/no-carry" gun toting as a good idea? Or not?

How about if you carry lots of cash you'd best be doing so in the fulfillment of your duties as an armed guard, which, by virtue of the job description, compels even the most clueless to wield a firearm.

I mean really---the average citizen carries lots of cash in this electronic ATM debit card age because why exactly? Therefore, carrying a loaded weapon while doing so is advised?

We need more guns like we need more Republicans working tirelessly to keep us all in the 12th Century in their indefatigable obstruction of the progress of government.

The only burglar that showed up for this piece was the time bandit. And he took 12-minutes we'll never get back if you've read down this far. Sorry to add onto your loss.

Those of you who've read the above article, simply said have obviously never had the unfortunate experience of your lives being threatened, or even attacked with most likely no way to defend yourselves.... Ive lived in santa barbara for years- and if you people dont think that local gang activity hasnt grown exponentially, then you either dont read, or youre covering your nieve eyes with the newspapers telling you about these incidents...maybe youd like to take a casual stroll by yourselves down Milpas some evening with your eyes closed, and see how far you get without getting your names in the newspaper. Or- even take your stroll down State St., on a not so popular, cold tuesday or wednesday evening, and give that nieve happy glance at the three jack asses with the OBVIOUS gang id tattoos...whatre you nuts? I wont take that chance- and I DO have a concealed weapons license to carry in california.....YOU HAVE NO CHANCE with these guys- WAKE UP!!!!! Its happening in your own backyard, and you think you gotta chance WITHOUT carrying protection??? Getta grip- with some protection attached to it, and you may just save your own rear end some night....wake- up.

I rather enjoyed this article. True, some may not see a point to it and it was completely different from what we normally read. Being from Minnesota, I remember most of my friends and in-laws had guns. I am in my 70's and still a good shot. But i do not shoot animals, only targets. We never had as many guns as Amy's dad did, but I found her memories fun to read. Maybe that is the point of the story--just some family history.

My children, even my daughter, went with me to a gun safety course at Santa Barbara High and supervised target shooting before getting licensed. They did go hunting with their father and we ate what they brought home. None were really interested in hunting and preferred fishing.

I believe Mr. Clausen, the point of the article is that you need not to fear guns. Perhaps in many cases, carrying a gun is a prudent idea - a small business owner who has cash on hand for transactions. A woman living alone is another scenario. With the higher population and even the higher unemployment rate, people get desperate especially in a town with such vast disparity between classes.

Nieveliberal may have problems with his/her spelling, but they make sense.

The L.A. scene has been making its way into S.B. for years, and while we can break down numbers as to the probability of being mugged, raped, or killed, some people want the right to be able to protect themselves.

Yes, I know that nieve (spanish for the word "snow") is probably meant to read "naïve", but the naïveté I see is demonstrated by those who think that disarming the populace is the way to a peaceful society.

Note to "nieveliberal": The Independent has a policy stated in their guidlines about using all capital letters for words. Using "all caps" will result in your comment being deleted.

Our B.S. meters must be set about the same, Pinatubo, mine went off too, when I read:

"Guns, statistically, don't make attempted rapes safer. They make them more dangerous for the woman."

If you examine the above statement I think you will find sufficient reason to doubt both the credibility and the level of education of the letter-writer. In fact, if you read it enough, you begin to wonder if the writer knows anything about the subject at all of if they are approaching the gun issue the same way a fundamentalist Christian approaches Anthropology. That would explain the circuitous thinking and the blurting out of the word "statistically" without supplying any statistics.

Indeed, how would one go about collecting statistics on such a thing as "attempted rapes involving guns", if that's what the writer meant? And while we're at it, since we seem to be talking about rape and guns, wouldn't any rape that ended unsuccessfully, that is, any ATTEMPTED rape be a rape with a GOOD outcome, all things considered? Has the letter-writer unwittingly discovered an amazing principle? That rapes against armed women generally (statistically) turn out to be unsuccessful? I just don't know.

Seriously, I can't imagine any woman, say my sister or mother or any other woman I've ever known who, if faced with the prospect of being raped, wouldn't take comfort from the weight of a pistol in their jacket-pocket. And I'd like to know the statistics surrounding women who have been raped and whether these women, the best representatives and most trustworthy authorities, I would think, where rape is concerned, don't tend to carry a little something extra in their purses these days, even if it's just pepper-spray.

At the end of the day public opinion is swayed more by theIvory-tower pronouncements of privileged social-pundits and tenured researchers who live in gated-communities than they are by the cries of the inner-city blue-collar worker who must navigate dark and dangerous streets every night on her way home from the factory.

Me, I look at it this way: Any culture that will turn it's collective head for nearly an hour while a woman is raped on the sidewalk in front of it's house, as was the case in New York City not that long ago, has no moral right to tell that same woman she can't or shouldn't carry a gun.

Following up on Wayne's comment is going to be hard because I think he covered enough bases but I'll add my view on this, which little doubt will incur the ill-informed insults of those who choose to ignore reality.

I remember the night my sister came home in 1972 with her face battered, she was 15 and told me she had been in a fight. I was 11 and at that time she was getting into a lot of fights and trouble so of course I bought it. About three years later she told me "don't tell mom and dad, but that night I was raped". So here we were with our "dirty little secret". She eventually told my parents what happened which was that on the way back from a friend's funeral, she got gang raped.

How dare any self-rightous fool tell her or anyone else who has been dragged into the *real* world that they do not have the right to protect themselves and who ignorant for them to think the cops will get there in time. To wit: Someone is breaking into your house and you say "Oh you better not do that because I'll call the cops".

I think of Tony Ayala Jr, who was the former number one Junior Middleweight contender back in the early 1980's. He raped his first victim when he was 15 and she was 14 with such force he ruptered her bladder. He got a slap on the hands because after all, he was a Cash Cow who already was making his name in the sports world. Fast forward to 1983, he's signed to fight for the title and according to what I was reading at the time would have walked right through the then-champion. New Years day 1983, he gets arrested for tying his next door neighbor to a chair in her home and raping her. He gets sentenced 15-35 years. Oh by the way, no more boxing allowed, career effectively over.

1998: Ayala is released after being a model prisoner. A few months later, he becomes interested in a young woman he meets in his family's boxing gym (even though he was married all this time) and shortly thereafter, he breaks into where she's living at 4 in the morning. The noise wakes her and her roomate up, and there he is, standing in the dark holding a sock in his hand. (In the two rapes he would bind his victims with a sock) Trembling with horror, the would-be victim reaches for her gun and shoots him, hitting him in the shoulder. Cops arrive afterward, Ayala is arrested. Ayala somehow got off with probation again but eventually after numerous parole violations was sent away for ten years.

Now, for all the anti-2nd Amendment people out there, do you think this woman should not have had a gun? What if my sister had been armed? If you don't like guns, don't own one.

I hadn't thought about penalties (which seems off topic) and as far as screening and training, I would agree that those are good ideas. My simple answer is that the screening/training would reasonably assure that the user is not likely to fly off the handle and shoot someone unless it is in self-defense.

I think Rambler asked a fair question, not at all off topic, maybe even pivotal. My answer, which I hope doesn't seem too simplistic, would be to organize things along the lines of the DMV.

The process would begin at home and among families that chose to participate. There would be camps and training seminars for the very young and, perhaps, shooter's training in High School.

At 18, or thereabouts, a young man or woman would go down to the local DFA (Division Of Firearms) to be tested and licensed. The testing would involve a mental-health screening as well as a physical, hand-eye examination and an eye-test.Once a year an individual would be required to physically return to the DFA for an up-date and re-licensing.

If the weapon, the carry-license or the right-to-bear was misused the license would be revoked and the weapon confiscated.

Weapons and carry-permits would be issued according to need, not want. Although any-and-all (with some exceptions of course: violent criminals, felons, individuals with mental-health issues, etc.) would have the right-to-bear, necessity and common-sense dictate that not everyone will be allowed to carry an assault-rifle or an automatic, 12-guage shotgun, just like not everyone is allowed to drive an eighteen-wheeler.

I don't know, I think a modified DMV model would work but there is always room for other opinions or other ideas.

And to all a good night: Go do your research on the incidence of gun-involved crimes in Florida after the right-to-carry law was passed there and then come back here and have an intelligent, fact-based discussion. I could quote you the results, but the anti-gun crazies (and I only use that term because those types insist on maligning those who desire reasonable gun laws, calling them gun-nuts, etc.) wouldn't believe it. (Gun crimes against FL citizens decreased every year for the 10 years studied after the law went into effect). As many have said, but the anti-gun crazies won't understand - if the bad guys think you MIGHT have a gun, they'll think twice about attacking you. Duh.

Us non-gun nuts understand that correlation is not causation. The decrease in violent crimes in Florida may have resulted from the right-to-carry law, or it may have more to do with the fact that, nationally, violent crimes have steadily decreased over the last 10 years.

The right-to-carry and concealed weapons laws assume one basic principle - if you arm one moron, you have to arm them all, or else it's not fair sport.

"the right-to-carry and concealed weapons laws assume one basic principle - if you arm one moron, you have to arm them all, or else it's not fair sport. "

Guns are like drugs: you can pass all the laws you want, but the hard-core criminals will still get them leaving others defenseless. Also, how do the less physically strong protect themselves against carjackers and rapists?

I am armed, own and carry my own legally purchased firearm, have 15 years of extensive weapons training on both stationary and moving targets including some that fire back. I NEVER serverd in our Military, been trained by licensed professionals, can score high on paper and on 'Popper' targets. Have been trained with Pistols, (Auto's and Revolvers), AR's and AK's Assault Rifles, Sub-Machine Guns and Crew served Machine Guns, Shotguns (Pump and Semi-auto's) and a few Rifles (Bolt and Auto action). I carry a pen, that I was trained to kill another human being with, am an adacate of Expandable batons, Pepperspray and Tazers/Stunguns, which I have training and a State Licenses to carry and poccess. My Trainers have all been Retired Police, Sheriff and Federal Law Enforcement, a few (Assault and Crew Served machine Guns) have been active or retired Military.

I am also a Federal Contracted Security Officer (not guard), who has been in three justified shootings and have administrated medical assistance to two of the "Tango's" I was forced to shoot (or die by their guns); I was cleared of all three of the 'Firearm Dischages', by the way.I wear a Level 2A Bullet Resistant Vest and when I work here in our Nations Capital and wear my Heavy Armor Carrier Vest with a Ceramic covered plate, Bullistic Helmet and carry a Shooter Trama Pack.From the lovely things I 've read in both the Independent and other publications, I would still carry my pen (designed to write and KILL) but unless I really felt endangered for my life, which I wouldn't in Santa Barbara, I would leave the other gear at home but that's just me, I can use anything within arms reach to defend myself and leave my opponet either wounded or dead but again, that's just me, I was trained NOT to be a Victim but a Surviver, the rest of America, are either VICTIMS or Preditors watching for the next scared lamb to tear-apart for a little drug money or for that gang cred.

Those who don't get professional training and are armed are just providing the criminal with a means to an end (yours).

Car-Jackers, punch the gas pedal to get away, I dragged a car-jacker for a mile and half before I left him plastered against a the rear of a parked car and the street in broad daylight and got a stolen gun for his troubles.There are victims and then there are survivers, which one are you?????????

I think the question should be "where will criminals go to assault people?...a place that is disarmed, or a place where guns are allowed and as such they run the risk of their intended victim drawing a gun?

I fully agree that proper training is a must; an untrained person with a gun not only is more likely to shoot when such action is not justified, but according to what I've read, they are six times more likely to die than an unarmed victim.

What needs to be cleared up is that some people simply do not believe the average citizen should even have the right to own a gun under any circumstances. One of those is Barbara Boxer.

here is a quote from Senator Barbara Boxer's autobiography "Strangers in The Senate."

On page 179, Boxer writes "Senator John Chafee of Rhode Island has introduced a bill to prohibit the manufacture, importation, exportation, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns or handgun ammunition; the only exception would be for law enforcement, military guards, or antique collectors and regulated handgun clubs. Senator Chafee calls his bill the 'Public Health and Safety Act,' and that's an appropriate name." For the next four pages she quotes Chafee after which Boxer writes "Waiting periods may well help and I support them, but I do believe that Senator Chafee's approach will lead to a better America."

EatTheRich, you're right, coorelation is not causation. So strip out the general decline in national crime rate and the numbers in Florida are still compelling.

Although my guess is that our real disagreement here is that I, like my namesake, believe in maximum individual freedom and personal responsibility and minimal government. And I am paranoid enough, no doubt due to my ancestors suffering under the Nazis, that I do not want ever to live in a place where only the government and/or the bad guys have weapons.

As we've seen in SB over the past few years, even in Paradise the police provide insufficient protection.

@JohnLocke: "And I am paranoid enough, no doubt due to my ancestors suffering under the Nazis, that I do not want ever to live in a place where only the government and/or the bad guys have weapons."

Wow - a reference to the Nazis on the internet.

Since my ancestors also "suffered" (talk about an understatement) under the Nazis, that probably explains my hatred for Swiss banks and Volkswagens. Seriously, John, this is probably the most eye-rolling statement in your entire oeuvre - and that's no small achievement.

It should be noted that, immediately following Florida's passage of its right-to-carry law in 1986, total violent crime in Florida INCREASED. JohnLocke is specifically citing gun crime, but by not cherry picking the stats, Florida's crime stats pretty much parallel the national stats. There zero indication that a right-to-carry law had any significant impact.

"One of the best examples is Florida. Prior to their enactment of concealed carry laws in the late 1980s, the crime rate in Florida was higher than the national average. However, following the enactment of the concealed carry law their crime immediately began to drop and has continued to do so today."

@billclausen: That's simply not true based on the stats provided by of Florida's Department of Law Enforcement. That article doesn't cite a single course on which to base that argument. And again, correlation is not causation.

Maybe I'm reading the chart you provided incorrectly, but it appears that overall the lower numbers are more prevelant since the late 80's. Like I say, maybe I'm just not interpreting the chart correctly.

Look at the Total Crime Index per 100K (basically a loose percentage) and the Index Percentage Change from 1986 to 1989. If the Total Crime per Index is higher than the previous year, the Index Percentage Change is higher - meaning that there was MORE crime than the previous year. The Total Crime Per 100K is important, because the increase in the number of total incidents alone can be attributed to the increase in population.

If find it interesting that there are no crime statistics for 1988 and, as a result, no rate of change for 1989. One would think that those making these claims regarding the right-to-carry laws would want those stats to see if the there was a decrease in crime. What is available, however, is the post 1993 rates, which see a continued decrease and larger decrease in crime rates which are consistent with the national trends. Even with the benefit of the doubt, data correlating the Florida gun law with crime stats is unavailable - so those making these grandiose claims are simply incorporating Florida's consistency with national trends to make their point.